Useful Liberal Idiots and Vote Fraud

Among the responses to my recent article on Democrat vote fraud were those of liberals who were happy to hear no evil, see no evil, and be the evil. Their rationalization-aided attitudes ranged from accusing traditionalists of being sore winners to equating 2012 with Bush-Gore in 2000 to simply denying hard evidence. Does it matter at all to you, liberals, that Democrats were actually caught on video facilitating and promising to engage in vote fraud? Rhetorical question, I know. And the denial much reminds of what ex-KGB Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov said about people born of the process of "demoralization": even if you took them to the USSR so they could see the gulags with their own eyes, they would not believe what you were showing them.But what you can believe is that, increasingly, Barack Obama is trading the rule of law for the law of the ruler. Not only has his machine engaged in vote fraud, but he has relied heavily on governance by executive fiat -- for instance, on immigration.

Clearly, many liberals aren't bothered by this because their guy won and is doing their bidding (or so they think). They don't realize that while the kind of politicians elected or policies instituted is significant, it is secondary to how things are done.

For instance, let's assume for argument's sake that Barack Obama and his agenda really are sweetness and light, God's gift to American governance. Accepting this, it would follow that anyone standing in his way is harming our nation. But does this mean that getting him into office and his policies instituted by any means necessary is justified? What of means that do more harm than the frustration of your desired end?

The point is that you may trust Obama, but he won't be around forever. And once vote fraud becomes the norm, can you really be sure that the future candidate with the slickest "ground game" won't be a vile demagogue you fear? Will you want this person to be able to rule by executive fiat? Because he will. That toothpaste can't be put back in the tube, yet you liberals insist on squeezing that tube empty.

The problem with you progressives is that you never progressed beyond childhood; you think only of what you want in the moment and are oblivious to long-term implications. Our Founding Fathers gave us three branches of government for the same reason ancient Sparta once had two kings: man has long recognized the perils of placing too much power in one leader's hands. So forget Obama. Do you really want the presidency to become a dictatorial institution? And, of course, effective vote fraud empowers an ambitious leader more than most anything else. For a politician can act contrary to the people's will with impunity if the people don't have the capacity to vote him out of office.

And once a government is afforded new powers, not only does those powers' exercise soon become habitual, but future leaders will be loath to relinquish them. Freedom is not an Aspidistra; it dies easily and grows again only under ideal conditions. Tyranny, on the other hand, is like nuclear waste: it can have an interminable half-life.

Liberals' attitude regarding the Obama machine's vote fraud is reminiscent of their defense of the Wizard of Is (Bill Clinton)'s infidelity. They didn't condemn his behavior but say that, because he was still the lesser of two evils, they'd have to hold their nose and vote for him regardless; rather, they were willing to lower the whole nation morally to elevate one man politically. Likewise, liberals are now willing to downgrade our electoral integrity to upgrade one ideological class to hegemonic prominence.

Leaders come and go, but a degraded moral fabric and undermined rule of law -- and the former begets the latter -- can be forever. Forever? "Whatever," the liberals say. The future means nothing to juveniles governed by what feels right in the present.

As for conservatives, they need to learn something about child-rearing: you don't negotiate with unruly children.

Among the responses to my recent article on Democrat vote fraud were those of liberals who were happy to hear no evil, see no evil, and be the evil. Their rationalization-aided attitudes ranged from accusing traditionalists of being sore winners to equating 2012 with Bush-Gore in 2000 to simply denying hard evidence. Does it matter at all to you, liberals, that Democrats were actually caught on video facilitating and promising to engage in vote fraud? Rhetorical question, I know. And the denial much reminds of what ex-KGB Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov said about people born of the process of "demoralization": even if you took them to the USSR so they could see the gulags with their own eyes, they would not believe what you were showing them.

But what you can believe is that, increasingly, Barack Obama is trading the rule of law for the law of the ruler. Not only has his machine engaged in vote fraud, but he has relied heavily on governance by executive fiat -- for instance, on immigration.

Clearly, many liberals aren't bothered by this because their guy won and is doing their bidding (or so they think). They don't realize that while the kind of politicians elected or policies instituted is significant, it is secondary to how things are done.

For instance, let's assume for argument's sake that Barack Obama and his agenda really are sweetness and light, God's gift to American governance. Accepting this, it would follow that anyone standing in his way is harming our nation. But does this mean that getting him into office and his policies instituted by any means necessary is justified? What of means that do more harm than the frustration of your desired end?

The point is that you may trust Obama, but he won't be around forever. And once vote fraud becomes the norm, can you really be sure that the future candidate with the slickest "ground game" won't be a vile demagogue you fear? Will you want this person to be able to rule by executive fiat? Because he will. That toothpaste can't be put back in the tube, yet you liberals insist on squeezing that tube empty.

The problem with you progressives is that you never progressed beyond childhood; you think only of what you want in the moment and are oblivious to long-term implications. Our Founding Fathers gave us three branches of government for the same reason ancient Sparta once had two kings: man has long recognized the perils of placing too much power in one leader's hands. So forget Obama. Do you really want the presidency to become a dictatorial institution? And, of course, effective vote fraud empowers an ambitious leader more than most anything else. For a politician can act contrary to the people's will with impunity if the people don't have the capacity to vote him out of office.

And once a government is afforded new powers, not only does those powers' exercise soon become habitual, but future leaders will be loath to relinquish them. Freedom is not an Aspidistra; it dies easily and grows again only under ideal conditions. Tyranny, on the other hand, is like nuclear waste: it can have an interminable half-life.

Liberals' attitude regarding the Obama machine's vote fraud is reminiscent of their defense of the Wizard of Is (Bill Clinton)'s infidelity. They didn't condemn his behavior but say that, because he was still the lesser of two evils, they'd have to hold their nose and vote for him regardless; rather, they were willing to lower the whole nation morally to elevate one man politically. Likewise, liberals are now willing to downgrade our electoral integrity to upgrade one ideological class to hegemonic prominence.

Leaders come and go, but a degraded moral fabric and undermined rule of law -- and the former begets the latter -- can be forever. Forever? "Whatever," the liberals say. The future means nothing to juveniles governed by what feels right in the present.

As for conservatives, they need to learn something about child-rearing: you don't negotiate with unruly children.